My mom would have boxed my ears instead

I suppose, in this day and age, non-corporal punishment is the norm . . . but it still seems to me that a California teenager got off lightly.

It was a morning that any mom with a teenager could relate to, said Nicole Poppic, a 34-year-old veteran and mom of three in Northern California. While her son Alex, 10, and daughter Sammi, 4, were ready and waiting to leave for school, Poppic's oldest child, Cara, 14, had overslept, and then she spent even more time arguing with her mother about, well, everything.

"When we finally got in the car and I looked at the clock and realized that we were running late, I started doing the 'mom' thing," Poppic told TODAY Parents. "My lecture went something along the lines of, 'You need to start thinking about other people, Cara. You are not the only person in this family, and you made your brother and sister late, too."

Then Poppic heard Cara’s favorite band, Panic! at the Disco, start playing from the passenger seat of the car. "That is when I saw that Cara had put in her headphones and was staring out her window, completely ignoring me," she said. "I reached over and took her phone off her lap, unplugged her headphones, and threw her phone out the car window."

But in case that maneuver doesn't convince you that Poppic is winning at parenting, she went one step further: after making Cara wait while she dropped off both her younger siblings at their school, Poppic wrote her daughter a tardy note that told the attendance office at Cara's high school the unvarnished truth about their morning from her perspective:

. . .

After she returned home, Poppic retrieved Cara's phone from the neighbor's yard no worse for the wear and posted a photo of the letter to her Facebook page, where it has been liked more than 7,000 times and shared over 32K times since the beginning of September.

(Click the image for a larger view)

There's more at the link.

My parents wouldn't have wasted time on gentle persuasion.  They had a rather more robust style of parenting!  (It was a different world in those days, of course.)

Peter

Sad Puppies, loud giggles, and a new book

Back in 2015, I called for a boycott of Tor Books, because one of that company's editors made scurrilous and completely untrue remarks.  Despite efforts to get the company to deal with the situation, that wasn't done to anyone's satisfaction.  (You can read all my posts about the issue, in reverse chronological order, by clicking this link.)

The root of the problem was liberal dominance (and manipulation of) the Hugo Awards.  Groups opposed to that included the Sad Puppies (formed by Larry Correia's fans, and joined by many others) and the Rabid Puppies (led by Vox Day, and rather less willing to compromise and 'be nice' towards the Social Justice Warriors who infested - and still infest - halls of mainstream-publisher-science-fiction.  I've never been a member of either group, although I certainly supported the Sad Puppies' campaign.  Furthermore, the Sad Puppies did not join my call for a boycott of Tor Books, although the Rabid Puppies did.

Amid all the unpleasantness about Tor and the various Puppy denominations, one amusing streak ran through the debate.  Declan Finn wrote a series of satirical posts on his blog portraying (highly) fictionalized SJW attempts to attack, silence or control various Sad and Rabid Puppy figures.  Most of them were very funny, and I enjoyed reading them.  (Yes, Miss D. and I were portrayed in one of them.)

Declan has now published his collected Sad Puppy posts in book form.

'Sad Puppies Bite Back' is free for Kindle Unlimited subscribers, and very reasonably priced for everyone else.  I've been enjoying re-reading Declan's wit, and chuckling all over again.  He had a lot of fun with this, and I daresay you will too.  Highly recommended as light, entertaining reading.

Peter

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, redux

On September 1st, I posted an article with the above headline, showing how cops in Chicago were abused by locals when they tried to do their job.  The past two days have seen two more incidents where the cops just couldn't win for losing.

In the first, a California Highway Patrol vehicle tried to stop a group of people performing illegal spins and donuts in an intersection - only to be attacked by those involved.

Clearly, those attacking the car (and performing illegal stunts in the road) have no respect whatsoever for law and order, and none for those trying to uphold and enforce it.

Next, a tragedy in San Diego.

A San Diego-area officer fatally shot a man who witnesses claim was mentally challenged and unarmed Tuesday afternoon, marking the latest victim in an unsettling series of black men killed by police.

. . .

Upon arriving, the first responding officer discovered a black male in his 30s frantically pacing back and forth, "not only endangering himself, but motorists," Davis said.

The officer allegedly ordered the man to remove his hand from his front pant pocket. When the man didn't comply, the officer drew his firearm.

A second officer arrived shortly thereafter and prepared to stun the man with a Taser. But as the officer prepared the electronic device, the man allegedly pulled out an object from his pocket, placed his hands together and took "what appeared to be a shooting stance," Davis said.

Both officers discharged their weapons simultaneously, fatally striking the man with several bullets as well as a high-voltage Taser shock. He was rushed to a hospital where he was pronounced dead Tuesday evening.

. . .

Olango's sister can be seen breaking down in tears.

"I called for help, I didn't call for you guys to kill him!" she screams in the video. "Oh my God, you killed my brother!"

Again, more at the link.

Initial video released by the police appears to confirm that the officers did not fire until the deceased man pulled something from his pocket and appeared to aim it at them.  Under the circumstances, I can't think of a single cop I know who wouldn't have fired at him.  I'm well trained and experienced in the use of firearms, and I can assure you;  if I'd been there, I'd have fired too!  You simply don't have time to wait until you know for sure whether or not the thing in his hands is dangerous or not.  If you wait, and it is a gun, you're going to be dead before you know what hit you.  You dare not take that chance.

Another aspect is that several shots were fired.  Again, this is standard procedure.  I've written extensively about the so-called 'stopping power' of handguns.  In a nutshell, handguns have lousy stopping power compared to a rifle or shotgun.  It's normal for multiple handgun rounds to be needed to subdue an opponent - and even that may not be enough to stop him killing you.  There are innumerable cases where a dozen or more hits did not disable an attacker.  Again, if I'd been in that officer's shoes, and I'd been armed only with a handgun, I'd have fired multiple times as well.

Unfortunately, people aren't going to consider the facts of the matter.  They're going to react out of emotion:  anger, loss, shock, and anything else you can think of.  The protestors at the scene chanting "Hands up!  Don't shoot!" were repeating a lie, the same lie that's at the root of everything Black Lives Matter does;  but they no longer care that it's factually a lie.  It's become a meme, a cultural assumption that transcends factual truth.  They won't be told, and they won't listen to it even if you tell them a thousand times.  Truth has become irrelevant.

So, two incidents.  In one, criminals arrogantly attacked police for daring to interfere in their wrongful activities.  In the second, police were forced to defend themselves from what they had to assume was an attack;  yet, having done so, they're being pilloried for "shooting an unarmed man".  More riots and demonstrations are likely to follow.

Police can't win for losing these days.  I wouldn't blame the next San Diego cop who's asked to respond to a 'man behaving erratically' call if he said, "Sorry - I ain't going there.  Tell those on the scene that they're on their own.  I'm not going to put my head on a politically correct chopping block for them any longer."  Trouble is, if more police do that - and many of them are doing that, implicitly if not explicitly - then all of us are going to suffer from the inevitable breakdown in law and order.  Those thugs that attacked the CHP police vehicle will grow bolder, and move into our neighborhoods . . . and the cops won't do a thing to stop them, because they know that if they do, they're going to be blamed.

Mr. Trump was right during Monday night's debate.  We need law and order.  It's a foundational requirement before we can fix our society.  Yes, I know that certain elements in our justice system are inherently and unashamedly racist, or high on a power/ego trip of "Respect mah authoritah!"  We've examined their conduct in these pages many times before, and we know they need to be slapped down.  That doesn't alter the fact that without law and order, our social structure itself is doomed.

So how do we get out of this handbasket?

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #931

I thought of titling this post "How (not) to win friends and influence people", but that's already been taken.  Nevertheless, I think it's safe to say that one fumble-fingered federal agent has probably not made a friend.

Authorities say a federal agent accidentally shot a deputy’s leg at the sheriff’s station in Lemon Grove while unloading a handgun that was seized by a joint task force Monday.

. . .

The agent and other members of the unnamed task force recovered the .22 handgun while serving a search warrant in East County, Caldwell said.

The task force members returned to the sheriff’s station on Main Street to secure evidence about 5:30 p.m. While unloading the handgun, the agent accidentally discharged the gun, striking the deputy in the lower leg, Caldwell said.

The deputy was taken to a hospital and is expected to survive.

There's more at the link.

For the unnamed agent's benefit:  joint task forces are formed to act upon shared information . . . not ammunition!




Peter

Terrorism as taxation?

John Robb thinks so.

Liz Alderman at the NYTimes reported that terrorism is squashing Europe's first glimmer of recovery since the financial crash.  EU economic growth has been halved since spring, with France now at zero.  Here are some details:

• Tourism is sinking.  For example:  "In France, growth in nightly hotel room bookings after the Paris attacks fell to single digits from 20 percent. After the Brussels bombings, bookings went negative, and after Nice, bookings fell by double digits."

• Daily security costs are spiking.  Here's an example from a single venue, "the Paris Plage, a makeshift beach erected along the Seine, a dozen armed police officers guarded an entry checkpoint on a recent day. Army troops marched past families playing in the sand and half-empty activity points along the river. The patrols, cost taxpayers about 1 million euros, or $1.1 million, a day."

• Broad spectrum economic damage.  For example:  retail sales are slumping due to low traffic in stores and large numbers of entertainment events are being cancelled.

Although Europe has suffered terrorism before, this time it's different.  Instead of big and relatively infrequent terrorist attacks, these new attacks are small, numerous and geographically dispersed.  This change is a big deal, because it makes it possible for terrorists to turn attacks into "a tax" that depresses economic activity by imposing new costs and changing economic behavior.

There's more at the link.  Interesting reading.

It's a two-edged sword, of course.  Terrorism hits things like tourism, retail shopping centers, and so on.  On the other hand, security expenditures increase, and even ordinary consumers will spend more on protecting themselves and their families (and, of course, their homes and possessions).  As evidence of that, witness the surge in firearms sales after every major terrorist attack or urban unrest (e.g. after the Pulse nightclub attack in Florida, the riots in Charlotte, etc.)  Also, people who might be afraid to vacation in major centers (which are more likely to be the focus of terrorists, due to their high public profile) may bring unexpectedly brisk business to less fashionable (but safer) areas that they otherwise might not have patronized.

Nevertheless, terrorism does drag down the areas where it occurs.  If attack follows attack, with no time for those areas to recover, it can have a very negative long-term effect.

Peter

First World job security in a Third World invasion

To reinforce the point I tried to make in my first post this morning ('This election is about the First versus the Third World'), here's a profound and sobering article by David Hunt.  He titles it 'The Omen of Lost Shirts'.  He examines the growing trend to bring in cheaper (and often less skilled) labor to replace expensive, highly-qualified First World workers, and what it means for the latter and the society in which they live.  Here's an excerpt.

I was struck some time ago by a picture of two Air France executives being set upon by protesters over layoffs.  The protestors assaulted them, ripped their shirts off and – possibly – intended even worse before they managed to escape and obtain police protection.  The specific details of the layoffs are only circumferentially related to my central point: executives of a company announcing layoffs were physically assaulted.

In a similar vein, consider one specific protest that happened during the height of the “Occupy” movement: protesters angry at Bank of America’s (BoA) foreclosures descended – not on the company’s facility as I would opine would be a legitimate location – but to the home of one executive.  Not content to trespass on the lawn, they stepped onto the porch itself, frightening the man’s son who was at home (bolding added):

But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be "mob." Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise...

And lastly, consider two different levels of emotional display clearly evident in this video of a Carrier executive announcing the coming closing of both the Indianapolis production facility and the distribution center.  First, immediately relevant, is the very visible and barely-controlled fury at the announcement.

The second, the executive’s reptilian coldness in reading – and sticking to – a script (even if, inside, he felt uncomfortable about it), I’ll discuss a little later.

Just Short of Boiling

Unless you’re comatose you have heard that companies are replacing, wholesale it seems, American workers with H1-B visa holders. For example, Disney called their IT personnel into a meeting; many of these persons were top performers, having received excellent performance reviews with some winning top corporate honors.  They were informed that their jobs were being transferred to cheaper foreign workers, told that their severance pay relied on their staying to train those workers before they were shown the door… and then they were terminated.  Now they’re filing suit.

This is an epidemic. Abbott Pharmaceuticals just did it.  As have Harley Davidson and South California Edison.  Intel announced a 12,000-person layoff even as they lobby for more H1-B and L1 visas.  Taco Bell is shipping jobs overseas.  And it’s not just skilled labor: Tesla’s new factory seems to have used imported manual labor, saying they “expect their subcontractors to obey all laws...” – doubtless wink-wink.

A decade-old letter to the editor in the EE Times said “In my department, more than 20 Americans were ordered by corporate management to train our own replacements.” and added “I strongly suggest American students avoid the technology and engineering fields.”  And a similar training-your-foreign-replacement action at BoA arguably contributed to one employee committing suicide.  More broadly, being downsized in general increases the risk of suicide; one study reports losing one’s job increases it by 2.5 fold.

. . .

There’s even a book out about this wholesale replacement of American workers with cheaper immigrants:

And it’s not just cheaper labor; Shelly Palmer posted an antifreeze-level-cold LinkedIn post about how he replaced people with technology and commented (bolding added):

To the hundred or so people we’re about to get fired, I apologize. We make a living by analyzing problems for our clients and offering them solutions that create shareholder value. We’re just doing our job so you can lose yours. I’m pretty sure that one day (sooner rather than later) a machine-learning algorithm is going to replace most, or all, of my job too.

He apologizes. He apologizes.  As I asked in the comments, without immediate reply, how would his crocodile tears look had he learned Mr. Lee, whose job he eliminated, committed suicide from the loss of face and income?  I’m sure the fat wad of cash deposited in his bank account ameliorates his guilt; no doubt that his anticipated job loss will be after he’s gotten his lucre… he’s just following orders, er, doing his job.

Let Them Eat Pink Slips

So refer back to that Carrier executive’s announcement: it contained so little empathy for the fact that he’s announcing to these people the destruction of their lives, at least in the short term, as well as significant ripple effects in their community that it approached mathematical definition of zero.  It’s possible that he did, in fact, dislike the task which he had been assigned, but his hectoring of the workers to “be calm” and “be professional” and “keep up the output and quality” even as he says, in translation, “Your future has been utterly overturned” bespeaks a dearth of EQ – the hip-hop-happenin’ term these days.  Like Shelly Palmer, just above, I’d bet his bonus assuages any residual remorse he might have.

And while I can, on an intellectual basis, appreciate the economic arguments in favor of offshoring – like the one put forth by scholar Walter E. Williams, a man whose views I generally admire, here, – I will counter that the greatest global economic good does not necessarily equal the greatest American good.  Nor does it take into account other factors like national security concerns.

There's much more at the link.  Sobering, infuriating, worrying reading.

I'm not sure whether either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton fully grasp the size of this problem;  but I suspect the former does so in more realistic terms than the latter.  Of course, Mr. Trump may well have used the laws of the land to do precisely the same thing in his businesses;  one doesn't know.  However, as a businessman, I think he knows more about the subject than any professional politician. Can he effectively address the problem?  Only time will tell . . . and the decision of the electorate in November.

Peter

This election is about the First versus the Third World

I watched the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump last night, in the company of a few friends and fellow bloggers.  I wasn't wildly impressed by either candidate.  I'd score it a draw as far as its effect on the election is concerned.  I think most voters have already made up their minds by now.  Those that say they haven't won't find much in last night's debate to sway them, IMHO.

What did strike me was the contrast between the candidates' approaches to the rest of the world.  Donald Trump was emphatic about protecting American jobs and our national economy, if necessary by renegotiating international trade agreements, restricting immigration, etc.  Hillary Clinton was much more globalist in orientation, looking to admit more refugees, work together with other nations (whatever that means), and so on.  She basically saw the United States as just one nation among many, whereas Donald Trump saw it as the 'first among equals' with the right to put its own interests first.

I think that's the key to this election.  If you look at what's happening in Europe, with literally millions of refugees streaming into the continent from the Middle East and Africa, parts of it are rapidly taking on the character of the Third World from which they come - complete with Third World problems.  The ever-increasing sexual assaults on women?  That's the result of Third World attitudes, where women are possessions, first of their fathers, then of their husbands, and have little or no say in the way they're treated.  Third World men are treating First World women in the same way they treat their own women - and the First World is shocked and disgusted . . . but why?  Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have understood that this was inevitable.  Merely admitting someone into First World borders doesn't wave a magic wand and transform their thinking and their attitudes.

In the same way, demands for benefits, welfare, etc. are stretching to the limit European social support structures and systems that were set up to deal primarily with the needs of local citizens.  No-one stopped to think that an influx of refugees would overwhelm them.  I'm not being racist when I observe that matters so simple as how to use a flush toilet are proving to be serious issues in certain nations and cities where Third World 'refugees' congregate.  These people have never had the opportunity to use such facilities before, and no-one in Europe could conceive of the need to teach adults how to use a modern toilet.  The result has been a sudden surge in broken, clogged and otherwise damaged sanitary facilities in the camps set up to house these people, and in the accommodation provided for them once they've made it through processing.  The European taxpayer is, of course, footing the bill for repairs.

This also ignores the fact that Europe is importing its own next generation of economic problems.  Unemployment among younger people in Europe is already extraordinarily high.  Spain reports a youth unemployment rate of 43.9% as of July this year.  Italy's at 39.2%, Greece is 47.7%, and France is 24.4%.  Germany, by contrast, has only 7.2% youth unemployment.  With nations already struggling to find jobs for their own younger people, how on earth are they going to offer employment to so many 'refugees'?  (Of course, they're mostly not 'refugees' at all.  They're economic migrants, using the fiction of being refugees to seek a better life elsewhere.  Unfortunately, they'll do so at the expense of the people of the countries they're overwhelming with their numbers.)

If Hillary Clinton becomes President, I think her policies - as expressed in her election materials, and during her comments last night - are almost guaranteed to bring more of the same problems to this country.  (They're already here, of course, in the millions of illegal aliens infesting our land;  but that problem is still manageable at present levels.  It won't be if the influx continues, and if the present infestation is not cut back drastically.)  Donald Trump, on the other hand, appears to be firmly against that, and wants to reserve American jobs for Americans.  I strongly support that perspective.  Sure, some immigration will be necessary.  I'm an immigrant myself, and I'm very grateful to this country for offering me the chance to make a fresh start and find a new home.  However, I brought with me skills that this country needed;  I entered legally;  and I've supported myself.  Illegal aliens don't do that.  Many come here with no skills at all.  They're a net drain on the economy, when you factor in health care and other support costs.  We can't afford that.  It's that simple.

The tide of economic migrants from the Third World to the First World is ever-increasing, because the populations of Third World countries have increased so drastically that they have no expectation of anything worthwhile if they stay there.  There will never be enough jobs, enough social support structures, enough housing, enough health care, to meet their needs:  so they're trying to move to a place that can offer them those things.  Unfortunately, by seeking to leech off the American or European taxpayer, they're imposing an impossible burden on us - one that's completely unsustainable.

That's what this election is all about.  If we allow Hillary Clinton's policies to prevail, the Third World will be all around us within a few years (it already is, in some parts of this country).  America will be dragged down - economically, socially, and in due course politically - to the level of most of South America.  If Donald Trump's policies prevail, the tide may yet be stemmed, and even, perhaps, reversed.  I'm not at all sure that Mr. Trump will make a good President;  but I am sure that in this area at least, the policies he's expressed are light years ahead of his opponent's.

Peter

This is my shocked face . . .

Zero Hedge did a useful analysis of Politifact - one of the so-called 'fact checkers' analyzing claims by candidates in the current election cycle - and how it rated people on the left and the right.  Turns out its ratings aren't exactly honest, and use different 'facts' depending on whose claims it was analyzing.  The author concluded:  "We rate Politifact's fact-checking Mostly Biased."

This is hardly surprising, of course.  Many 'fact checking' organizations are, in fact, run by extremely biased parent organizations, and have individuals working for them who aren't exactly neutral.  My only surprise is that people give them any credit at all.  I rather suspect that the mainstream media find it convenient to have their propaganda duly anointed by such organizations, to help them evade accusations of bias.  (Politifact is, in fact, run by the Tampa Bay Times.  In effect, it's journalists fact-checking journalists.  Conflict of interest, anyone?)

As Juvenal put it in the days of Ancient Rome:  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Peter

Ingenious advertising

It seems that Japanese rice farmers working beneath the flight path of F-15 fighters based at Komatsu decided to make the most of the noise.  They christened their hand-packed product 'Roaring Rice'.

Apparently the product proved very popular with military service personnel and their families, and sold out within 20 minutes.  Ingenious advertising indeed!

Peter

Is the American school system a waste of time?

Novelist Nicholson Baker has written a book, 'Substitute', about his experiences as a substitute teacher in schools in Maine.

The New York Post reports:

What follows is a minute-by-minute account — funny, sad and often tedious — of what life is really like in these classrooms. And if these schools are at all representative, American education really is as bad as everyone says ... After reading “Substitute”, it’s easier to understand how 10 percent of college graduates could think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.

Students go to homeroom first, which is good for little more than taking attendance. Each time students switch classes, it takes them several minutes to settle down again. Baker can’t help but note how much time teachers spend simply telling students to be quiet over and over. And what is being accomplished in all this? Baker talks to students who are 10 or 20 assignments behind. Teachers regularly threaten to contact their parents but rarely seem to follow through.

. . .

Some of the classes seem to be covering the things you might expect. The kids are still reading Jack London’s “To Build a Fire”; they are still working on Punnett squares and trying to figure out the order of operations in math. They are studying World War II and the periodic table. But each subject seems to get only the briefest attention before it’s time to move on to the next thing. Any time a teacher is actually getting to the meat of a subject, there is some trivial announcement from the PA system interrupting them. And then there is the constant inane banter from students: In response to a teacher’s reasonable explanation of North Korean oppression, a student yells “Gangnam Style!”

Perhaps the most significant difference between the classrooms that Baker describes and the ones that most adults remember is the presence of technology. And it’s clear that this has only made things worse.

. . .

The entire system seems designed to drive teachers insane and prevent students from learning. Kids are on their iPads doing things unrelated to their schoolwork — playing games, listening to music, using iPad cases to beat each other over the heads. Some are even looking at “inappropriate material” in the back of the classroom. And unless a teacher is standing over them, they won’t be able to tell who is actually doing the work and who is playing games. Teachers ask for the definition of words and students just look them up online and repeat them verbatim.

. . .

“Substitute” is more than an argument for shortening the school day or chucking out iPads. It’s an argument for a traditional core curriculum — the kind of education in which students are taught how each subject relates to the others and why all are important to them as citizens and human beings. Without this, American education is doomed to mediocrity.

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended (albeit depressing) reading for anyone with kids or grandkids doomed to suffer through the American school system.

It's no wonder kids grow up into, first teenagers, then young adults, who think they're 'special snowflakes' and deserve to have everything handed to them on a plate.  They're not being educated at all, either in terms of a meaningful school curriculum, or in terms of life skills that they're going to need very badly before too long.  Homeschooling begins to sound like the only rational, sane way to prepare children for the real world.

Peter

Heh

Courtesy of Chief Nose Wetter:

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #930

A tip o' the hat to several readers who sent me the link to this video.

This welder had clearly never heard of dynamic tension - at least, not in a steel pipe.  Note (early in the video) the excavator bucket holding down one side of the pipe he's cutting.  As he's about to find out . . . there's a reason for that.

Sproinnnng!

Peter

This would make an epic April Fool joke

I had to laugh to read of a New York "artist" and his latest spoof project.

It’s the city’s secret tragedy: the giant-octopus attack on the Cornelius G. Kolff, a Staten Island Ferry boat dragged to a ­watery grave with 400 souls aboard on Nov. 22, 1963.

Few recall the harbor horror because news coverage was eclipsed by the shocking assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas that very day.

Also because it never actually happened.

But truth is no obstacle to artist Joe Reginella, the hoaxster whose slick brochures, Web site and even a statue are luring hapless tourists to a far corner of Staten Island in search of a museum devoted to the fantastical fish tale.

. . .

Said Australian tourist Tamara Messina: “The brochure sounded very intriguing,” adding that her three young sons “seemed a bit more concerned that it may happen again” as the family rode the ferry.

The Web site for the “museum” includes an authentic-looking Wikipedia entry, mocked-up newspaper articles, a video “documentary” — and an online shop hawking $25 “Octopus Memorial T-shirts.”

The T-shirts are the only thing that’s actually real.

. . .

Reginella, the mastermind behind the hoax, told The Post the prank took six months to plan and that it’s “part practical joke, part multimedia art project, part social experiment.”

He carts his “memorial” statue depicting the tragic event in cast bronze to Battery Park and other public locations and watches the startled reactions of passers-by.  (Click the image for a larger view.)

There's more at the link, including more photographs, the brochure, etc.

That's sheer comic and artistic genius!  Well done, Mr. Reginella.

(He's even set up a Web site for his project, where you can buy an octopus memorial T-shirt.  I'm darned if I don't buy one, just to say "Thank you" for the entertainment.  No, I'm not being compensated in any way for mentioning it.  I'm just highly amused!)




Peter

A populist president in the Philippines - echoes of Trump?

Austin Bay has some interesting thoughts on newly-elected President Duterte of the Philippines.  Here's an excerpt.

Filipino voters knew about what happened during the two decades Duterte ran Davao City. Crime rates and Islamic terrorist activity declined considerably. By 2005 Islamic terrorists and other criminals usually avoided the place. Now Duterte is applying his aggressive approach to fighting crime on a nation-wide scale. Since July 1st the few active Islamic terror groups left and the many drug gangs are taking heavy losses and looking for ways to deal with this unprecedented threat. Abu Sayyaf and other ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) type Islamic terrorists always fight back (and lose) but the drug gangs and are expected to be more flexible. In Davao City such compromises seem to have been avoided and threats of increased violence against government leaders was also ineffective. But now there are a lot more enemies a reformer has to deal with.

Duterte has been dealing with assassination threats and other intimidation since the 1990s and apparently knows how to protect himself and his family. As president Duterte’s aggressive anti-crime approach has had immediate results for most Filipinos. Crime is down and it’s the criminals, not the average Filipino, who are now living in fear. That is enormously popular with most voters. Some local and many foreign critics consider these vigilante methods illegal, immoral and ineffective. That remains to be proven. In the meantime these methods have, since July 1st, left over 3,500 known or suspected drug gang members and addicts dead. Most were low level dealers but these are criminals the people see daily and hate the most. As a result a recent opinion poll found 91 percent of Filipinos approved of this new “shoot on sight” approach.

While Duterte encourages Filipinos to personally fight back against crime and corruption, this is also an enormous police operation. Since July 1st over a million homes and workplaces have been visited by police investigating crime. This has resulted in the surrender or capture of over 715,000 drug suspects. But 93 percent of these were drug users and the rest were either distributors (“pushers”) or low level supervisors of distribution. Duterte had said he could arrest nearly two million drug suspects by the end of the year and use information collected from interrogations and searches of so many suspects to identify and prosecute the people running the drug gangs and the corrupt police and politicians who traditionally protected the drug operations. That process has already begun and so far there have been nearly 19,000 police raids resulting in the apprehension of about 19,000 suspects (6 percent being killed in the process). Among the dead were at least 17 corrupt cops working for the drug gangs, sometimes quite openly. Several dozen more senior police and political officials have admitted to drug gang-related corruption and surrendered.

. . .

Duterte is responding to the widespread feeling that some kind of radical solution is needed. Duterte apparently realizes that he has a short period of time to make some fundamental changes before public enthusiasm wanes and his powerful opponents (major drug gangs and corrupt senior politicians and bureaucrats) get organized. What worked in Davao City may not work on a national scale and that won’t be obvious until late 2017.

There's more at the link.

I can't help thinking that President Duterte's approach seems to have more than a little in common with Donald Trump's election campaign in the USA.  Mr. Trump is making the same populist appeal to American voters, and it seems to be having an effect.  From calling for not just an end to, but a reversal of the influx of illegal aliens, to emphasizing law and order, to cutting out bloated, inefficient government departments, Mr. Trump is appealing to a great many voters.  They can see for themselves the problems he's identified, and they know the present system is doing little or nothing to fix them.

I doubt whether Mr. Trump would issue a "Get them all!" call for vigilante justice and violence against criminals, as President Duterte has done.  Nevertheless, after many years in the Third World, I can understand the visceral appeal of such tactics.  Sure, a lot of innocent people get hurt when they're applied;  but the problems also get addressed, and frequently reduced to a level of minor background noise rather than a foreground clamor.  A lot of people are willing to tolerate infringements on their own privacy and security in order to accomplish that.

That, of course, is the frightening thing for those of us who take the constitution seriously.  We place a great deal of emphasis on the Bill of Rights.  In order for populist approaches to succeed, at least some of those rights will inevitably be honored more in the breach than in the observance.  Mr. Trump's recent call for increased New York City-style 'stop-and-frisk' tactics are a good example of that.  So much for the Fourth Amendment!  Nevertheless, popular support for efforts to reduce crime may well support such measures;  and the Peelian Principles of law enforcement may go out of the window in the process.  It's going to be a conundrum for many of us.

I think events in the Philippines will bear watching . . . as they will in this country as well.

Peter

Music, with interludes for reloading

This video shows Russian practical shooting head honcho Vitaly Kruchin paying Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' on steel plates using .22 handguns (which appear to be Glock pistols fitted with a conversion kit).  Since conversion kit magazines hold only 10 rounds each, in every case of which I'm aware, that can only mean that filming must have been interrupted fairly frequently to allow him to reload!

It's interesting from the point of view of marksmanship, too.  I don't think he used the sights on his pistols at all.  I wonder how many thousands of practice rounds he expended before making the recording?

Peter

More excellent advice on dealing with riots

Well-known shooting sports writer and producer Michael Bane has written an excellent article on his blog titled 'The Hour is Late...'  In it, he examines situations such as those in Charlotte, and offers sage advice as to how to conduct yourself if you should be so unfortunate as to run into one.  Reading it, I can only assume that he's 'been there and done that', just as I have.  Here's an excerpt to whet your appetite.

13) Your biggest challenge will be STAYING TOGETHER. I cannot emphasize to you how chaotic a full blown riot is and how easy it is to get separated from someone,..it is the equivalent of a human riptide. Your initial movement is to GET SOMETHING SOLID BEHIND YOU! You and yours do not want to be in the middle of a 360-degree ring of chaos. I always moved toward walls, business fronts, even park equipment in one case, because I wanted to limit my exposure to the panicked people running around. Be careful not to get trapped, but your worst position in in the center. If possible (and it probably won't be) have one adult stay in contact with 911 updating them on your position.

14) Try to get to a position where you can catch your breath and PLAN YOUR MOVEMENT! A riot is fluid, and it doesn't make much sense to move in the direction of the larger mass of people. THINK, then move!

15) In a terrorism situation, you're going to have to consider what has happened. If it is an explosion as what happened in New York City recently you need to get as far from the scene as you can as quickly as you can. Ideally, don't run with with crowds…as an Israeli counterterrorist expert once told me, the Israeli word for "Crowd" is "Target." The bomber will likely be in the vicinity, and the explosion may be signal to begin a larger attack with firearms or additional explosives.

There's much more at the link.  Highly recommended reading, and good advice.

Peter

Ain't so much fun when they shoot back, is it?

The video speaks for itself.  Watch in full-screen mode for best results.

Not being in color, the security camera footage doesn't show the brown streaks being left behind by the fleeing thugs.  One died of his injuries, and the cops are looking for the other two.  I did enjoy the one running straight through a glass door in his hurry to get away . . .

Peter

New toy on test

An interesting delivery arrived this morning.  The box contained a Henry Model H010 .45-70 lever-action rifle, with 18½" barrel - that company's equivalent to the well-known Marlin Model 1895 Guide Gun.  (Image courtesy of Oleg Volk - click it for a larger view.)

Unfortunately, I didn't get all that lovely ammunition with it - I'll have to provide my own!  I've ordered some Hornady 325 gr FTX LEVERevolution cartridges, which should be here shortly.

Also included was a Riton Mod 5 1.5-6x42IR scope.  It should be perfect for the short to medium ranges over which the .45-70 round excels, and the illuminated reticle should be very helpful during early morning or late-in-the-day hunting, when the light is low.

I'm going to have the pleasure of wringing out the combination over the next three months, with range time for myself and a number of friends at our Blogorado get-together next month, plus at least one (possibly two) hunts.

I've ordered an EGW Picatinny rail to fit the Henry receiver, and a couple of extended scope rings to mount the (rather long) scope as far forward as possible, so as to provide a usable eye relief.  I'll fit them when they arrive.  I'm looking forward to trying the combination on hog and deer later this year.  Miss D. and I are already eating down the freezer, and she's making suggestive noises about what she hopes to see in it before long - so I'd better not miss!

I must admit, I have a weakness for a well-crafted lever-action rifle.  They're just so darn neat, and there's a lot of history in the design.  I have half a dozen in my safe already.  If all goes well, I suspect this combination will make a worthy addition to my collection.

Peter

Perhaps Charlotte police might want to borrow the idea?

In April this year, actress Emma Thompson joined a group of anti-fracking protesters in England to hold a demonstration in a farmer's field.  A court injunction barred them from doing so, but that didn't stop them.

Furious at being prevented from working his land by the illegal demonstration, the farmer came up with a novel method of retaliation.

I wonder if Charlotte police could use that idea for riot control?  It might be a bit odiferous, but it might also disperse a mob quicker than almost anything else!  I'm sure there are local farmers who'd be delighted to assist, and those arrested for rioting could help with the cleanup . . .




Peter

Escaping a riot, redux

Following yesterday's article about 'Lessons from the Charlotte riots', a few readers have asked what they should do if they find themselves caught up in a mob situation.  It's all very well to say, "Get out of there before the trouble gets too bad", but what if you can't?

A couple of years ago I quoted Greg Ellifritz's advice in such situations.  It remains good common sense, and very practical, so I'm going to refer you again to his article, 'Mob Mentality ... Escaping from Riots and Flash Mobs'.  Here's an excerpt.

The first piece of advice I can give you is to pay attention to your surroundings and have an escape plan everywhere you go.  When you see things starting to go bad (massing police, masked looters, people setting fires) GET OUT!  Implement your escape plan!  Don’t stick around and become a target for police batons, gangs of teen looters, or panicked crowds.  Usually the people who get hurt or killed in these events are the people who aren’t paying attention or who want to stand around and be a spectator.

. . .

Having some sort of less lethal weaponry will help.  Many of the criminals who are caught up in the spirit of the riot are not very dedicated or motivated.  A quick blast of pepper spray will usually make them look for easier targets.

If you are attacked and you don’t have any spray (or the spray doesn’t work), you must act decisively.  Don’t get caught in the middle of two or more attackers.  If possible, keep moving to the outside of the group of attackers to “stack” them, or line them up so you only have to fight one at a time.  If you do get surrounded, violently attack one of the gang and either use him as a temporary shield or blast through him to make your escape.  Don’t just blindly run away, you may be running into an area where there are more problems.  Instead of running AWAY from the criminals, run TOWARD safety.  And remember that “safety” in this case may not be the band of police in their riot gear with batons out and ready!

Even if you are attacked by unarmed rioters, you still may be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself.  Multiple attackers using their fists and feet can constitute a reasonable perception of the risk of “serious physical harm or death”.  In that case, you may be justified in using your firearm or knife to protect yourself . . . Also beware that the police may have posted snipers who could shoot you if they see you have a gun.  As bad as it may sound, police often won’t differentiate between a criminal and a legally armed citizen trying to protect himself in a situation like this.  Everyone who is in the riot is thought of as a criminal.  “Criminals” shooting guns get shot by the police.

If you are in your car and are surrounded by rioting criminals, KEEP MOVING!  Don’t stop and allow them to open your doors or break your windows to drag you out.  I wouldn’t intentionally run someone over (unless that person posed a lethal force threat to me), but I wouldn’t stop either.  Pick a route (over the curb if necessary) and slowly drive through the crowd.  Your car will likely be damaged, but you will be out of the mess soon.

Don’t get in the habit of knowing only one route in to or out of a place to which you commonly drive.  Flexibility in these situations is paramount.  Keep your situational awareness up and be prepared to alter your route if you encounter throngs of people or roadblocks.

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading, particularly for all threatened by such situations.

Bear in mind, too, that your actions will almost certainly become the subject of 'Monday morning quarterbacking' by the authorities, the news media, and pressure groups such as BLM, the ACLU, etc.  They'll be scrutinizing every available surveillance video, news broadcast, etc., trying to find evidence against everyone except their people.

• Did you strike a rioter with your vehicle as you attempted to avoid a mob?  That may be portrayed as a deliberate attempt to murder someone (particularly if they were of a different race to yours).
• Did you shout back at the crowd as they threatened you?  You may be accused of racism, threatening behavior, or anything else that can be construed as negative or lawless.
• Did you brandish a firearm, or fire one or more shots, to clear a space of rioters so you could get out?  No matter how legally justified you may think you were, there will be those who'll seek to portray your actions as the criminal misuse of a firearm.

Remember, legal justification or otherwise will ultimately be determined in a court of law - and the side that enlists the greatest number of witnesses (who may or may not be entirely truthful) is likely to get the result it wants.  You're going to face, in court, witnesses drawn from among rioters who want to portray your actions in the worst possible light.  Good luck with that.  You're going to need it.

What's more, any surveillance or other video of your actions may well be subject to editing by those with their own agenda.  They're unlikely to be on your side, particularly if you might make a useful scapegoat to get the authorities off the hook.  "We tried to control the violence peacefully, but people like that racist driver made the situation so much worse that we lost control!  It wasn't our fault!  It was his fault!"  That's you they're pointing at, right there.

Even if you win in court, you're going to face a lifetime of ostracism at best.  It may be a lot worse than that.  George Zimmerman will probably never be able to live a normal life again, because most black people regard him as a murderer even though he was found not guilty.  Officer Darren Wilson was exonerated after Ferguson, but he'll never be able to work in law enforcement again, and will always have to guard himself and his family against those seeking revenge.  If you think I'm wrong about either man, I have this bridge in New York City that I'd like to sell you.  Cash only, please, and in small bills.

I repeat what I've said before:  in a riot situation, you may not be able to win for losing.  Therefore, get out ahead of the riot if at all possible.  If you can't, and you're trapped in it, do the best you can . . . but realize right from the start that your options are going to be limited, and the odds of getting away clean (including the aftermath) aren't good.  That's the reality of your situation.  Choose your actions carefully with that in mind.

Finally, I wouldn't necessarily try to avoid surveillance or other camera coverage.  If you try to do that, it's pretty obvious (looking around for cameras, pointing at them, ducking away from them, trying to hide your face, etc.).  That might be considered incriminating behavior.  Camera coverage may hurt you, but it might also help to prove you did only what you had to do, and acted legally.  It's a two-edged sword.

Peter